STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: To restore posterior teeth using low-shrinkage composite to minimize microleakage. PURPOSE: To compare the fracture resistance of mesio-occlusal-distal (MOD) cavity preparations restored with either low-shrinkage composite or with dimethacrylate-based composite in conjunction with cavity liners and without them. The null hypothesis of the study is that there are no differences in either fracture resistance or fracture mode between the silorane group and dimethacrylate groups with and without the use of cavity liners. METHOD AND MATERIALS: Sixty maxillary premolars were divided into six groups of 10. MOD cavities were prepared in four groups: F: posterior composite (Filtek P60); GF: 0.5-mm Glass Ionomer (Fuji LC) + posterior composite; FF: 0.5-mm flowable composite (Filtek Supreme XT) + posterior composite; and S: low-shrinkage composite (Filtek P90). Negative (N) and positive (P) control groups consisted of unrestored and sound teeth, respectively. The specimens were thermocycled and loaded. Data were analyzed using analysis of variance, Tukey, and chi-square tests (α = 0.05). RESULTS: Groups FF (1643.09 ± 187/80 N) and GF (1596.80 ± 163/93 N) (p = 0.06 > 0.05) were statistically identical, although less than group P (1742/33 ± 110/08 N), but still demonstrated greater fracture resistance than the other groups. The fracture resistance of group S (1434/69 ± 107/62 N) was identical to GF and FF (p = 0.06 > 0.05). The fracture resistance of F (1353/19 ± 233/90 N) was less than GF and FF, and statistically identical to S (p = 0.87 > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Silorane-based composite showed a resistance to fracture similar to methacrylate-based composite restorations regardless of whether cavity liners were used. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The findings of this study support the selection of silorane-based composite for the restoration of maxillary premolars with standardized Class II cavity preparations in order to strengthen the resistance to fracture to the same extent as do dimethacrylate composites using cavity liners or without them.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: To restore posterior teeth using low-shrinkage composite to minimize microleakage. PURPOSE: To compare the fracture resistance of mesio-occlusal-distal (MOD) cavity preparations restored with either low-shrinkage composite or with dimethacrylate-based composite in conjunction with cavity liners and without them. The null hypothesis of the study is that there are no differences in either fracture resistance or fracture mode between the silorane group and dimethacrylate groups with and without the use of cavity liners. METHOD AND MATERIALS: Sixty maxillary premolars were divided into six groups of 10. MOD cavities were prepared in four groups: F: posterior composite (Filtek P60); GF: 0.5-mm Glass Ionomer (Fuji LC) + posterior composite; FF: 0.5-mm flowable composite (Filtek Supreme XT) + posterior composite; and S: low-shrinkage composite (Filtek P90). Negative (N) and positive (P) control groups consisted of unrestored and sound teeth, respectively. The specimens were thermocycled and loaded. Data were analyzed using analysis of variance, Tukey, and chi-square tests (α = 0.05). RESULTS: Groups FF (1643.09 ± 187/80 N) and GF (1596.80 ± 163/93 N) (p = 0.06 > 0.05) were statistically identical, although less than group P (1742/33 ± 110/08 N), but still demonstrated greater fracture resistance than the other groups. The fracture resistance of group S (1434/69 ± 107/62 N) was identical to GF and FF (p = 0.06 > 0.05). The fracture resistance of F (1353/19 ± 233/90 N) was less than GF and FF, and statistically identical to S (p = 0.87 > 0.05). CONCLUSION:Silorane-based composite showed a resistance to fracture similar to methacrylate-based composite restorations regardless of whether cavity liners were used. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The findings of this study support the selection of silorane-based composite for the restoration of maxillary premolars with standardized Class II cavity preparations in order to strengthen the resistance to fracture to the same extent as do dimethacrylate composites using cavity liners or without them.